As always we have much more work to do than we have people to do it, so we would very much welcome assistance from people in the conformance testing community.
But do we stand by our own criterias of quality? Recently, there was a discussion about EBNF.
So, they are not normative. Worries have been expressed about merging the two documents.
When there will be issues which seems more difficult to overcome, we will explain the solution we have found and adopted to solve them.
Quite probably, the user will just get irritated, browse away, never to return: language negotiation, albeit there to help the user, can prove to be a usability liability.
Patrick Curran has proposed to take her role. A hard-coreof supporters provide help.
The latter is sometimes used as a fallback mechanism when the server-driven mechanism fails.
Lynne agrees to continue to participate to the work of the QA IG.
Worries have been expressed about merging the two documents.
They highlight some common implementation issues in user agents and HTTP-based softwares. We require validation tools that work and are kept up to date. As always we have much more work to do than we have people to do it, so we would very much welcome assistance from people in the conformance testing community.
Recently, there was a discussion about EBNF.
We have to make very clear that it's not a way to collect issues about Web architecture document itself. How much do we eat our own dog food?
Her time is too limited. So, they are not normative.
As always we have much more work to do than we have people to do it, so we would very much welcome assistance from people in the conformance testing community.
The format is quite interesting and gathering the knowledge about one particular topic of Web architecture.
it helps harmonization of vocabulary accross specifications and maintains regularity.
Fortunately, more recent versions of the server now allow the setting of a fallback, or default, variant in case the negotiation fails.